🚀 go-pugleaf

I have an interesting anecdote to relate:
Several years ago a group of amateur Greek chess players came up with a game we called "anti-chess".  The idea was quite simple: if you got your opponent to take
your king you won.  The basic simplifying rule was that if any material was offered to be taken you had to take it - if several pieces could be taken at certain move you could choose among the alternatives.  We played anti-chess for more than a year and had developed several scenarios where white lost if he played a set of first moves.  However, we had not "solved" the problem of anti-chess.  
At an international tournament some Greek players showed this game of anti-chess to some Russians.  We found out months later that "anti-chess" had been solved: white moves first, black always wins!
Granted, anti-chess is not as elaborate as chess and the rule about having to capture material really limits choice and renders a lesser probability tree, however, the solution was anything but trivial.  
My experience with antichess makes me believe that chess is "solvable": the 
question of whether it is "practically solvable", however, is a different matter.
Peter Vafeades